The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission has declared that Republican Walt Havenstein is eligible to appear on the ballot in the September primary election for governor.

If Havenstein wins his primary against Andrew Hemingway, he would face Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan in the November election.

Havenstein sought the BLC’s blessing after Democrats questioned whether he was eligible to run.

The key question was whether Havenstein had relinquished his domicile in the state at any point during the previous seven years, since election law requires a candidate for governor to have been domiciled continuously in the state for that long before an election.

In the end, Havenstein garnered the support of one of the panel’s Democrats and the BLC voted 3-2 to allow his candidacy to go forward.

In testimony before commissioners, Havenstein noted that he had never voted anywhere but New Hampshire since moving to the state, and that his wife, Judy, stayed behind in their Alton home while the future candidate himself lived for more than four years in a condo in Maryland.

The former CEO of BAE Systems in Nashua worked out of BAE’s Virginia headquarters and was later named CEO of Virginia-based defense contractor SAIC. He told commissioners he spent about seven months of the year in Maryland during that time and he received two tax breaks that only Maryland residents were entitled to get. To do so, he had to claim his $1 million condo as his primary residence, though his lawyer said he received it automatically under a law in place at that time, and only had to apply for it when he sold the property.

Havenstein acknowledged that he lived in the condo most of the year, held a Maryland driver’s license for part of the time and even once claimed the Maryland address on a state income tax form. But he returned to Alton as often as he could, he said, and he blamed computer tax software for listing the condo as his legal address. The bottom line was that he never intended to give up his status as a New Hampshire resident.

That the Ballot Law Commission ruled for Havenstein is not surprising. The panel has, historically, chosen to lean toward inclusion, which we think is wise.

We also believe it is important for those on either side of the issue to share their reasoning with the public. We would have preferred the committee to deliberate in the open, but absent that we’re glad the BLC issues written opinions to explain why commissioners voted the way they did. Involving as it does a candidate for governor, the Havenstein case is the most significant to come before the BLC in several years.

This case also illustrates the fact that the state’s domicile law could be clearer.

It reads: “An inhabitant’s domicile for voting purposes is that one place where a person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in democratic self-government. A person has the right to change domicile at any time, however a mere intention to change domicile in the future does not, of itself, terminate an established domicile before the person actually moves.“

The good news is, that allows for flexibility. But the lack of specific standards that would allow an objective observer to determine whether someone is domiciled in the state has the potential to undermine confidence in the system.

Legislators really should take another stab at coming up with qualifications that are clearer and less subjective.